* Ferguson: "The Justice Department has released a scathing report based on its investigation of the Ferguson, Missouri, police department, in which it says the police department engaged in broad pattern of conduct that routinely violated the constitutional rights of African-Americans."

* Also in Missouri: "In a eulogy that doubled as a stunning rebuke of a top official in his own party, former U.S. Sen. John Danforth, R-Mo., declared Tuesday that 'politics has gone so hideously wrong,' and implicitly blamed that tone for Missouri gubernatorial candidate Tom Schweich's suicide last week."

* What a fall from grace: "Former CIA Director David Petraeus will plead guilty to mishandling classified information, a Department of Justice spokesperson said Tuesday. The plea agreement outlines the terms in which prosecutors will recommend a sentence of two years of probation, with no jail time, and a $40,000 fine."

* Nancy Pelosi was unimpressed with Benjamin Netanyahu: "'I was near tears throughout the prime minister's speech --saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States,' she fumed in a statement afterward, adding that she didn't appreciate 'the condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran and our broader commitment to preventing nuclear proliferation.'"

* Classless: "Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) took a cheap shot at House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Tuesday over her reaction to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech.... In a private fund-raiser after the speech, [Graham] pointed to Pelosi's behavior as evidence that a Republican majority is better for those who support Israel. 'Did you see Nancy Pelosi on the floor. Complete disgust,' he said, according to one attendee. 'If you can get through all the surgeries, there's disgust.'"

* West Virginia: "As expected, Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin on Tuesday vetoed a bill banning late-term abortions in West Virginia, citing constitutional concerns, an action that sets the stage for the first legislative override of a gubernatorial veto in nearly 28 years."

* Speaking of West Virginia, the state told the Supreme Court that it "predicated decisions" about health care on the assumption that ACA subsidies were conditional. By all appearances, that was a brazen lie.

Just yesterday, three Republican senators co-authored a Washington Postop-ed saying Americans need not fear GOP justices on the Supreme Court gutting the Affordable Care Act. "We have a plan for fixing health care," they boasted, reassuringly.

Upon further inspection, however, the "plan" lacked something important: a plan. The Republican senators had some pleasant sounding platitudes and vague goals, but to describe the op-ed as a credible policy solution is silly.

A day later, three leading House Republican committee chairs -- Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and John Kline (R-Minn.) -- were equally proud to announce this morning that they have "a sane health-care alternative" to the dreaded "Obamacare."

[After the Supreme Court tears down the current system] the question is: Then what? What about the people who will lose their subsidies --- and possibly their coverage? No family should pay for this administration's overreach. That is why House Republicans have formed a working group to propose a way out for the affected states if the court rules against the administration.

What we will propose is an off-ramp out of ObamaCare toward patient-centered health care. It has two parts: First, make insurance more affordable by ending Washington mandates and giving choice back to states, individuals and families. And second, support Americans in purchasing the coverage of their choosing.

Oh, good. There's a "working group" with an "off-ramp." Americans who'll soon no longer be able to afford chemotherapy will no doubt be thrilled.

Jonathan Bernstein asked this afternoon, "Just how stupid does Paul Ryan think we are?" The answer, I suspect, is that Paul Ryan isn't thinking about us at all -- he's trying to persuade Republican Supreme Court justices to work as an extension of the GOP policymaking apparatus. The endgame is denying people health care coverage; nothing else really matters.

All eyes were on Capitol Hill this morning, when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a speech to a joint session of Congress, hoping to undermine nuclear diplomacy with Iran. Everyone involved in the debate, regardless of their position, had a pretty good idea as to what the Israeli leader was going to say, and he met expectations.

A senior administration official told Jake Tapper there was "literally not one new idea" in Netanyahu's speech, and "not one single concrete alternative" to the ongoing P5+1 talks. The official added that the prime minister's speech was "all rhetoric, no action."

The complaints have the benefit of being true.

Putting aside the fear-mongering and the Cheney-esque rhetoric, what Netanyahu's remarks boiled down to was a straightforward message: Iran is bad and the deal that's coming together with Iran won't work. What Netanyahu's speech was supposed to do was offer policymakers and critics of the talks a viable alternative solution, and on this front, the prime minister blew it. As Jon Chait noted:

Netanyahu's panicked plea for what he called "the survival of our country" is hardly a figment of his imagination. His recitation of the evils of Iran's regime was largely correct. He might conceivably be correct that the Obama administration could have secured a stronger deal with Iran than the one it is negotiating, though that conclusion is hard to vouchsafe without detailed knowledge of the negotiations. [...]

But Netanyahu did not make even the barest case for a better alternative.

It's a familiar problem for President Obama's critics: there's an obvious problem in need of a solution; there's a proposal preferred by the White House; and there are Obama's critics, insisting they hate the president's solution without offering a credible alternative of their own.

The Republican plan for funding the Department of Homeland Security never really made any sense. As GOP lawmakers saw it, they'd refuse to fund the cabinet agency unless Democrats agreed to destroy President Obama's immigration policy -- but it was painfully obvious all along that Dems would never accept such terms.

The resolution was always going to be the same: Congress would have to pass a "clean" DHS bill, funding the department, and go after the White House's immigration policy through the courts. It was only a matter of time before Republicans realized they had no other credible option.

House Speaker John Boehner told congressional Republicans Tuesday morning that he will bring up a vote to pass a "clean" bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security with no strings attached, according to NBC News.

With his back up against a wall and funding for the critical government agency set to run dry by Friday at midnight, Boehner alerted the House GOP conference during a closed door session Tuesday that the lower chamber will be voting on the clean bill as early as that afternoon. Boehner's announcement was met with dead silence from the room, NBC News reported.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), one of Congress' fiercest anti-immigrant voices, told the AP after the meeting that this resolution is "the signal of capitulation," a complaint that happens to be true. But again, the question has always been when, not whether, congressional Republicans would fund Homeland Security. They could play games, fight with one another, point fingers, and make all kinds of threats, but sooner or later, a clean bill would clear Capitol Hill and become law.

Boehner could have saved himself quite a bit of hassle and humiliation if he'd guided his conference in this direction weeks ago -- the Speaker knew as well as anyone that this day was inevitable -- but he just isn't in a strong enough position to lead effectively.

On the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, meanwhile, there's President Obama, who's won another round.

Today's installment of campaign-related news items that won't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) announced this morning that he will not run for Sen. Barbara Mikulski's (D) seat next year. "I am hopeful and confident that very capable public servants with a desire to serve in the Senate will step up as candidates for this important office," he said. "I will not be one of them."

* As if New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) weren't having enough trouble, a new Fairleigh Dickinson University PublicMind poll shows his approval rating in his home state dropping to just 35%. A majority of Christie's own constituents now disapprove of how he's doing his job.

* Speaking of Christie, some of the governor's financial backers are launching their "first event for bundlers." A total of 25 donors, who'll raise between $25,000 and $100,000 each for Christie's political action committee, will meet later this month in suburban Bernardsville, N.J.

* Though paid speeches are unusual for presidential candidate, former Gov. Jeb Bush (R) will deliver a paid speech to the American Council of Life Insurers today in Las Vegas. It will reportedly be his last paid speech before officially kicking off his campaign.

The New York Times had a report out of New Jersey last week that probably deserved more attention than it received. Today, the paper moved the ball forward with an interesting development that seems to make matters worse.

A long-fought legal battle to recover $8.9 billion in damages from Exxon Mobil Corporation for the contamination and loss of use of more than 1,500 acres of wetlands, marshes, meadows and waters in northern New Jersey has been quietly settled by the state for around $250 million.

Keep in mind, Exxon's culpability was effectively already decided -- the talks among the lawyers was not whether the oil giant was responsible for severely damaging New Jersey wetlands, but rather, how much Exxon would pay in damages.

As the Times' report explained, the costs were enormous, because the state had a high burden "restoring and replacing the resources damaged by decades of oil refining and other petrochemical operations, as well as of the public's loss of use of the land."

Indeed, this was no small contamination -- we're talking about 7 million gallons of oil, ranging in thickness from 7 feet to 17 feet. It's no wonder New Jersey sought $8.9 billion in damages when its Democratic governor first filed suit in 2004. By all estimates, it would cost billions just to repair some of the obvious environmental damage.

And yet, there was the Christie administration last week, settling the case for roughly $250 million. As Rachel asked on Friday's show, "Did Exxon just get the deal of the century from the state of New Jersey?"

For much of last year, Republicans celebrated Russian President Vladimir Putin as an exemplary leader they wished President Obama would emulate. A few crises, invasions, and economic collapses later, the right quietly decided their Putin affections may have been misplaced.

More recently, however, Republicans settled on a new favorite: King Abdullah of Jordan. At one point last week, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins suggested Abdullah was "responding in a more direct and authoritative way to these attacks of ISIS than our own president," prompting Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) to respond, "That is true. Other countries seem to be doing more or taking it more seriously." (It's not true; U.S. airstrikes on ISIS targets far out number Jordan's.)

Fox News was so enthralled with Abdullah that "The Daily Show" devoted a whole segment to the Republican adulation for the Jordanian king.

It looks like conservatives will now have to pick a new foreign leader to adore.

Fox News has been talking up King Abdullah of Jordan for weeks as a strong leader going after ISIS in contrast to President Obama's ineffectiveness. He opened up about the fight against ISIS in an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria yesterday, talking about how this is the "third world war by other means." But beyond that, he actually said something that the people at Fox might not be so keen about, when he showed agreement with President Obama in not calling ISIS Islamic extremists.

Fareed Zakaria asked if Obama is right not to call ISIS "Islamic extremists" and King Abdullah said, "I think he is right." He said that ISIS is "looking for legitimacy that they don't have inside of Islam" because they are "outlaws on the fringe of Islam."

Remember, in some Republican circles, President Obama's military offensive against ISIS doesn't count and is better left ignored. What really matters is the president's word choice -- much of the right is heavily invested in whether the president uses phrases like "radical Islam" and/or "Islamic terrorism." Whether Obama's broader national security strategy is effective is largely irrelevant.

Except, here's King Abdullah of Jordan -- the man the right has cheered on in recent weeks -- reminding Americans that Obama is right and Republicans are not.

As president, George W. Bush had an annoying habit of telling one specific joke over and over again: "I remind people that, like, when I'm with Condi, I say, 'She's the Ph.D. and I'm the C student and just look at who's the president and who's the advisor.'"

Republican audiences invariably laughed whenever Bush told the joke, but the humor always struck me as misplaced. It's not exactly a positive message to young people: study, get good grades, and work hard in school, and someday you too can take orders from a guy who struggled to graduate.

In 2011, then-Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) made similar jokes, poking fun at his poor grades and boasting about what a lousy student he was in school. "I graduated in the top 10 of my graduating class -- of 13," Perry bragged, invariably prompting laughter and applause from GOP audiences.

This year, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) isn't yet offering similar punch-lines, but he is keeping the anti-intellectual strain alive.

Walker responded by ticking through his recent itinerary of face time with foreign policy luminaries: a breakfast with Henry Kissinger, a huddle with George P. Shultz and tutorials at the American Enterprise Institute and the Hoover Institution.

But then Walker suggested that didn't much matter. "I think foreign policy is something that's not just about having a PhD or talking to PhD's," he said. "It's about leadership."

I don't much care that Walker dropped out of college and never got a degree. I do care, however, about him dismissing those with doctorates, as if vague platitudes about "leadership" are a meaningful substitute for actual expertise.

When Rudy Giuliani recently attacked President Obama's patriotism, the former mayor thought he could clean up his mess by making additional dumb comments. Eventually, the New York Republican was defending his ugly thesis by saying Obama had been "influenced" by communists "from the time he was 9 years old."

At this point, it seems the how-to-be-a-good-communist lessons just didn't stick. If the president is a hyper-liberal opponent of capitalism, he's executing his plan very poorly.

The last time the tech-laden Nasdaq stock closed above 5,000, Bill Clinton occupied the White House, America Online had agreed to buy Time Warner for $165 billion and beloved "Peanuts" cartoonist Charles Schulz had died in his sleep.

The index closed slightly above that level on Monday, unofficially ending Monday at 5,008.10, up 44.57 or nearly 1 percent, as investors celebrated an interest rate cut in China and upbeat economic data. The Dow Jones Industrial Average and the S&P 500 also advanced.

Some of this interest, I'll concede, is the result of people liking round numbers. In a practical sense, Nasdaq 5000 isn't more exciting than Nasdaq 4999.

But the numeric milestone nevertheless offers an opportunity to pause and consider the big picture. Since President Communist took office, the Nasdaq index has nearly tripled. The same is true of the S&P. Looking back over the last several generations, Wall Street gains under Obama are far stronger than under Reagan, and rival the bull market of the Clinton era.

Congress' latest Benghazi committee asked former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to make available emails from her official State Department account. There was just one problem: Clinton never used email through her official State Department account.

Likely presidential candidate Hillary Clinton may have run afoul of federal record keeping regulations by using only a personal email account during her entire tenure as secretary of state, according to a new report from The New York Times. [...]

Clinton did not have an official government account while at State, using a personal email account to conduct all her business, the Times reported Monday evening.

A spokesperson for Clinton told the New York Times her use of the personal account is consistent with the "letter and spirit of the rules," though it's not yet clear how.

There's no shortage of problematic angles to this. Obviously, there's the question of transparency and compliance with the Federal Records Act. Clinton wasn't the first Secretary of State to make use of a personal email account -- Colin Powell did the same thing during his tenure in the Bush/Cheney administration -- but preservation rules have changed and Clinton apparently faced more stringent requirements.

There's also the matter of security: as Secretary of State, Clinton sent and received highly sensitive information on a daily basis, including classified materials, from officials around the world. By relying on private email, instead of an encrypted State Department account, Clinton may have created a security risk.

Politically, though, Republicans find themselves in an awkward position. The RNC issued a statement asking, "[I]t all begs the question: what was Hillary Clinton trying to hide?"

Putting aside the misuse of "begs the question," the Republican track record makes this a difficult question to ask.

At the invitation of the House Republican leadership, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will address a joint session of Congress today. His goal is simple: the Israeli leader, in the midst of his own re-election campaign, hopes to derail international diplomatic talks with Iran.

Quite a few congressional Democrats, who have no interest in bolstering Netanyahu's goals, have decided to make other plans today.

[T]he impending speech has further strained already-tense relations between the White House and House Republicans. And now, dozens of Democrats -- including 2016 hopeful Sen. Elizabeth Warren, according to a scoop by The Boston Globe -- have announced that they will not be attending Netanyahu's speech.

Estimates vary on exactly how many Dems intend to skip Netanyahu's address -- NBC News puts the total at 47 members (39 in the House, 8 in the Senate), while The Hill's tally shows 55 members (47 in the House, 8 in the Senate) -- but the fact remains that what was a small contingent has obviously grown considerably in recent weeks.

What's more, the totals don't include Vice President Biden, who will also not attend, and President Obama, who said he will not meet personally with the prime minister during his D.C. visit.

The entire incident, as has been well documented, has put an ugly and unnecessary strain on U.S./Israeli relations, and cut across some of the predictable lines: on the one hand, there are some Democrats who will welcome Netanyahu, while on the other, many notable Israeli leaders, including former members of Netanyahu's own cabinet, have criticized the speech and urged the prime minister to cancel.

Jeffrey Goldberg added last week, "For decades, it has been a cardinal principle of Israeli security and foreign-policy doctrine that its leaders must cultivate bipartisan support in the United States, and therefore avoid even the appearance of favoritism. This is the official position of the leading pro-Israel lobbying group in Washington, AIPAC, as well, which is why its leaders are privately fuming about Netanyahu's end-run around the White House. Even though AIPAC's leadership leans right, the organization knows that support for Israel in America must be bipartisan in order for it to be stable."

Netanyahu and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) are putting all of this at risk, and it comes to a head on Capitol Hill later this morning.

Ayman Mohyeldin, NBC News foreign correspondent, talks with Rachel Maddow about a coordinated effort by the Iraqi Army to take back the town of Tikrit from ISIS, and the role of Iran in the fight against ISIS and influencing Iraqi politics. watch

Pages

Launched in 2008, “The Rachel Maddow Show” follows the machinations of policy making in America, from local political activism to international diplomacy. Rachel Maddow looks past the distractions of political theater and stunts and focuses on the legislative proposals and policies that shape American life - as well as the people making and influencing those policies and their ultimate outcome, intended or otherwise.